draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-07.txt		draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-08.txt
	Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Luby		Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Luby
	Working Group Watson		Working Group Watson
	Internet-Draft Vicisano		Internet-Draft Vicisano
	Obsoletes: 3450 (if approved) Qualcomm Inc.		Obsoletes: 3450 (if approved) Qualcomm Inc.
	Intended status: Standards Track July 13, 2009		Intended status: Standards Track September 3, 2009
	Expires: January 14, 2010		Expires: March 7, 2010
	Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation		Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation
	draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-07		draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-08
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
			from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
			available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
			copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
			Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
			IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
			the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
			document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
			derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
			Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
			translate it into languages other than English.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
	publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).		publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18		skipping to change at page 3, line 18
	protocol, a massively scalable reliable content delivery protocol.		protocol, a massively scalable reliable content delivery protocol.
	Asynchronous Layered Coding combines the Layered Coding Transport		Asynchronous Layered Coding combines the Layered Coding Transport
	(LCT) building block, a multiple rate congestion control building		(LCT) building block, a multiple rate congestion control building
	block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to		block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to
	provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of		provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of
	content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single		content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single
	sender. This document obsoletes RFC3450.		sender. This document obsoletes RFC3450.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.1. Delivery service models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Delivery service models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	1.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	1.3. Environmental Requirements and Considerations . . . . . . 5		1.3. Environmental Requirements and Considerations . . . . . . 6
	2. Architecture Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2. Architecture Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.1. LCT building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.1. LCT building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.2. Multiple rate congestion control building block . . . . . 9		2.2. Multiple rate congestion control building block . . . . . 10
	2.3. FEC building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.3. FEC building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.4. Session Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		2.4. Session Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	2.5. Packet authentication building block . . . . . . . . . . . 12		2.5. Packet authentication building block . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3. Conformance Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		3. Conformance Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	4. Functionality Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4. Functionality Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	4.1. Packet format used by ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4.1. Packet format used by ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	4.2. LCT Header-Extension Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		4.2. LCT Header-Extension Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	4.3. Sender Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		4.3. Sender Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	4.4. Receiver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		4.4. Receiver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	5.1. Baseline Secure ALC Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		5.1. Baseline Secure ALC Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	5.1.1. IPsec Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		5.1.1. IPsec Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	5.1.2. IPsec Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		5.1.2. IPsec Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	8. Changes from RFC3450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		8. Changes from RFC3450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document describes a massively scalable reliable content		This document describes a massively scalable reliable content
	delivery protocol, Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC), for multiple		delivery protocol, Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC), for multiple
	rate congestion controlled reliable content delivery. The protocol		rate congestion controlled reliable content delivery. The protocol
	is specifically designed to provide massive scalability using IP		is specifically designed to provide massive scalability using IP
	multicast as the underlying network service. Massive scalability in		multicast as the underlying network service. Massive scalability in
	this context means the number of concurrent receivers for an object		this context means the number of concurrent receivers for an object
	is potentially in the millions, the aggregate size of objects to be		is potentially in the millions, the aggregate size of objects to be
	skipping to change at page 27, line 12		skipping to change at page 28, line 12
	o Definition and IANA registration of the EXT_FTI LCT Header		o Definition and IANA registration of the EXT_FTI LCT Header
	Extension		Extension
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative references		9.1. Normative references
	[I-D.ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised]		[I-D.ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised]
	Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding		Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding
	Transport (LCT) Building Block",		Transport (LCT) Building Block",
	draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-09 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-11 (work in progress),
	March 2009.		August 2009.
	[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,		[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
	August 1980.		August 1980.
	[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,		[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
	RFC 1112, August 1989.		RFC 1112, August 1989.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
End of changes. 6 change blocks.
	34 lines changed or deleted		44 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/